Stuck-Pipe Prediction by Use of Automated Real-Time Modeling and Data Analysis
- Kent Salminen (Weatherford) | Curtis Cheatham (Weatherford) | Mark Smith (Weatherford) | Khaydar Valiullin (Weatherford)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Drilling & Completion
- Publication Date
- September 2017
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 184 - 193
- 2017.Society of Petroleum Engineers
- stuck pipe, real-time model prediction, drilling optimization, non-productive time, real-time data analysis
- 14 in the last 30 days
- 402 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 10.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 30.00|
A real-time method is presented to predict impending stuck pipe with sufficient warning to prevent it. The new method uses automated analysis of real-time modeling coupled with real-time data analysis. It can be applied to all well types for any well operation, including drilling, casing running, completion activities, and reentries. The method uses leading indicators of stuck pipe that were identified by use of historical data sets of 36 stuck-pipe incidents in the Eagle Ford, Utica, and Permian and in the Gulf of Mexico. Two case histories show the utility of the new method in shale and carbonate horizontal wells for both drilling and off-bottom operations.
The new method combines two types of analysis: use of hydraulics and torque-and-drag (T&D) software to determine deviation of real-time data from the real-time model, and trend analysis (i.e., rate of change) of real-time data. Parameters used are pump pressure, flow rate, torque, rotary speed, hookload and drag, and weight on bit (WOB), along with static inputs such as bottomhole-assembly (BHA) and drillstring configuration and directional surveys. Additional parameters, such as downhole equivalent circulating density (ECD), are used when available and improve the results. But the method is designed to monitor all well types and provide a stuck-pipe-risk log even by use of only basic instrumentation. A novel algorithm predicts the probability of stuck pipe, which is presented in a real-time log.
Results demonstrate that there is no single leading indicator in all stuck-pipe incidents. Our early-detection method, called the stuck-pipe-risk (SPR) log, relies on multiple indicators to strengthen the likelihood of detecting impending stuck pipe while avoiding false alerts. A key element to automating the process is the use of filtering for rig activity. The first indicator is deviation of actual data from model predictions. A second indicator is trend analysis (specifically, rate-of-change calculations), which provides valuable insight into rapidly deteriorating wellbore conditions when deviation from model predictions does not respond quickly enough over a short depth or time interval. Results are presented that show the SPR-detection method successfully detected impending stuck pipe on four historical shale wells an average 38 minutes before sticking and on one historical carbonate well more than 2 hours before the event. No false alerts were recorded in these wells. These results were viewed as meeting the initial goal of providing relevant alerts with sufficient time to prevent the pipe from becoming stuck.
|File Size||1 MB||Number of Pages||10|
Belaskie, J. P., McCann, D. P., and Leshikar, J. F. 1994. A Practical Method To Minimize Stuck Pipe Integrating Surface and MWD Measurements. Presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Dallas, 15–18 February. SPE-27494-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/27494-MS.
Biegler, M. W. and Kuhn, G. R. 1994. Advances in Prediction of Stuck Pipe Using Multivariate Statistical Analysis. Presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Dallas, 15–18 February. SPE-27529-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/27529-MS.
Bradley, W. B., Jarman, D., Plott, R. S. et al. 1991. A Task Force Approach to Reducing Stuck Pipe Costs. Presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 11–14 March. SPE-21999-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/21999-MS.
Dupriest, Fred E., Elks, William C., and Ottesen, S. 2011. Design Methodology and Operational Practices Eliminate Differential Sticking. SPE Drill & Compl 26 (1): 115–123. SPE-128129-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/128129-PA.
Ferreira, A. P. L. A., Carvalho, D. J. L., Rodrigues, R. M. et al. 2015. Automated Decision Support and Expert Collaboration Avoid Stuck Pipe and Improve Drilling Operations in Offshore Brazil Subsalt Well. Presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 4–7 May. OTC-25838-MS. https://doi.org/10.4043/25838-MS.
Guzman, J. M., Khalil, M. E., Orban, N. et al. 2012. Stuck-Pipe Prevention Solutions in Deep Gas Drilling; New Approaches. Presented at SPE Saudi Arabia Section Technical Symposium and Exhibition, Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia, 8–11 April. SPE-160875-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/160875-MS.
Hempkins, W. B., Kingsborough, R. H., Lohec, W. E. et al. 1987. Multivariate Statistical Analysis of Stuck Drillpipe Situations. SPE J. 2 (3): 237–244. SPE-14181-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/14181-PA.
Howard, J. A. and Glover, S. B. 1994. Tracking Stuck Pipe Probability While Drilling. Presented at SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Dallas, 15–18 February. SPE-27528-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/27528-MS.
Jahanbakhshi, R., Keshavarzi, R., Aliyari Shoorehdeli, M. et al. 2012. Intelligent Prediction of Differential Pipe Sticking by Support Vector Machine Compared With Conventional Artificial Neural Networks: An Example of Iranian Offshore Oil Fields. SPE Drill & Compl 27 (4): 586–595. SPE-163062-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/163062-PA.
Johancsik, C. A., Friesen, D. B., and Dawson, R. 1984. Torque and Drag in Directional Wells-Prediction and Measurement. J Pet Technol 36 (6): 987–992. SPE-11380-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/11380-PA.
Muqeem, M. A., Weekse, A. E., and Al-Hajji, A. A. 2012. Stuck Pipe Best Practices–A Challenging Approach to Reducing Stuck Pipe Costs. Presented at SPE Saudi Arabia Section Technical Symposium and Exhibition, Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia, 8–11 April. SPE-160845-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/160845-MS.
Murillo, A., Neuman, J., and Samuel, R. 2009. Pipe Sticking Prediction and Avoidance Using Adaptive Fuzzy Logic Modeling. Presented at the SPE Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 4–8 April. SPE-120128-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/120128-MS.
Naraghi, M. E., Ezzatyar, P., and Jamshidi, S. 2013. Prediction of Drilling Pipe Sticking by Active Learning Method (ALM). J. Pet. Gas Eng. 4 (7): 173–183. https://doi.org/10.5897/JPGE2013.0166.
Poordad, S., Chamkalani, A., and Pordel Shahri, M. 2013. Support Vector Machine Model: A New Methodology for Stuck Pipe Prediction. Presented at SPE Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition, Muscat, Oman, 28–30 January. SPE-164003-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/164003-MS.
Sheppard, M. C., Wick, C., and Burgess, T. 1987. Designing Well Paths To Reduce Drag and Torque. SPE Drill Eng 2 (4): 344–350. SPE-15463-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/15463-PA.
Siruvuri, C., Nagarakanti, S., and Samuel, R. 2006. Stuck Pipe Prediction and Avoidance: A Convolutional Neural Network Approach. Presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Miami, Florida, 21–23 February. SPE-98378-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/98378-MS.
Tikhonov, V., Valiullin, K., Nurgaleev, A. et al. 2014. Dynamic Model for Stiff-String Torque and Drag. SPE Drill & Compl 29 (3): 279–294. SPE-163566-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/163566-PA.
Vajargah, A. K., Sullivan, G., and van Oort, E. 2016. Automated Fluid Rheology and ECD Management. Presented at the SPE Deepwater Drilling and Completions Conference, Galveston, Texas, 14–15 September. SPE-180331-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/180331-MS.
Warren, J. E. 1940. Causes, Preventions, and Recovery of Stuck Drill Pipe. API-40-030.
Weakley, R. R. 1990. Use of Stuck Pipe Statistics To Reduce the Occurrence of Stuck Pipe. Presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 23–26 September. SPE-20410-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/20410-MS.
Wisnie, A. P. and Zhu, Z. 1994. Quantifying Stuck Pipe Risk in Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas Drilling. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 25–28 September. SPE-28298-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/28298-MS.
Yarim, G., Uchytil, R. J., May, R. B. et al. 2007. Stuck Pipe Prevention–A Proactive Solution to an Old Problem. Presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition, Anaheim, California, 11–14 November. SPE-109914-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/109914-MS.